> This comment is itself a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Except it's not. It's just an observation of these comments. I don't have a dog in this race. I am not a citizen or a resident. Both residents and citizens are sounding entitled IMHO.

> Nobody feels entitled to a visa. It’s aspirational, like applying to a job. People do it because they want a better life, knowing full well they could be denied, or that it may well be temporary.

For those applying for a new visa I would mostly agree. For those extending their Visa I would disagree heavily.

> But if you believe immigrants could take something from you, like your job or housing, then it makes sense you’d project this idea of entitlement onto them. As if by applying they’re implicitly laying claim to something owed to you, a citizen.

If there is no genuine concern over this then why are applications/quotas for work Visas even a thing? Just offer automatic residence to whoever in the world can get hired by any company that operates in the USA. Infinite GDP glitch.

You are right that government of the USA doesn't owe citizens a continued quality of life. The preamble is very clear on that. When it says "promote the general Welfare" that is interpreted as the welfare of residents and citizens alike.

> In reality the economy is not a fixed pie and nothing is being taken from you. Immigrants take jobs, but they also spend money, pay taxes, start businesses, and need houses built, all of which leads to more jobs. It’s a positive feedback loop that benefits everyone, and a big part of how America’s economy grew into what it is today.

I mostly agree but "benefits everyone" is not true. There are winners and losers and negative externalities. GDP isn't a happiness score. Cynical me thinks that the difference between a USA resident and a citizen is basically non existent for the average USA citizen in terms of rights (arguably worse in terms of responsibilities for non politically active people who don't work with/for the federal government) but the permission to reside indefinitely is one of those rights so a government denying residency is a way to artificially give value to the citizenry without actually giving or improving anything.

Maybe compare it from point of asian phd, who follows all rules, spends thousands of dollars, and years applying for job and visas... and much better treatment of people, who move to US illegally.

I stopped traveling to US, because during covid goverment, could not be even bothered to clarify entry rules (what sort of booster shots were needed etc). At the same time south border was widely opened. Clear rules and fair game, are the bare minimum!

There are fixed number of jobs, fixed number of houses to rent... it is not infinitive baloon.

[dead]

[flagged]

So do the natives.

I think what he's saying is if a corporation has a genuine need of some high specialist in a skill, and no American has that skill - then okay, such is life - bring in a foreign worker. But corporations have abused the system to unnecessarily employ immigrant labor in lieu of American, because immigrant workers not only tend to earn well below market wages (which is supposed to be illegal), but also tend to be far more easily coerced and loyal because their visa is dependent upon them staying with their employer.

I didn’t follow your casino allegory. Anyway I happen to agree that “pausing” is inhumane. What I’m trying to communicate is we didn’t get here in a vacuum. There is a real problem and good faith attempts have been made to curtail it by putting pressure via “taxes” on the “interests of capital” abusing H1B. Cooperation would have prevented this.

Right, the point isn't that "Leave to renew" is some kind of horrible policy. Such bad-fucking-faith on display everywhere.

The point is maybe signal to people that we will soon be pausing all visa renewals so people who trivially have good jobs and good records know they ought to literally just plan on moving out of their apartment rather than have to deal with paying thousands of dollars to have someone else move their shit overseas, just to maybe get their visa renewed right when their shit arrives and they have to do the same thing all over again.

This would literally just helping law-abiding folks follow the law. But no, the cruelty is the point.

[flagged]

It is sufficiently incoherent as to suggest you aren't interested in the serious discussion you are requesting in response. You could better refute this by starting with a policy you would consider cruel, and the in turn demonstrating how this one doesn't fit it.

Historically i've tended to agree that "the cruelty is the point" was too dismissive for the policies in question. But with immigration policy of this admin, I'm not sure that's the case. For a while they were deporting people to the equivalent of a Gulag, and literally suggested that if people were afraid of that outcome they should self deport. I think that would be a pretty fair example of a policy where the cruelty was the literal point: The hope was it would be viewed with sufficient fear as to dissuade people from staying in the country illegally. However seriously you think immigration should be taken, and however many people you feel should be deported, there are policy choices that do not involve that level of cruelty that could be chosen instead. That they are intentionally not is what the term "The cruelty is the point" is meant to imply.

This is a vile analogy, whose implication so twists the American tradition that I blush with shame to read it from a possible countryman.

What American tradition? I'll let Lincoln speak, since you have already given voice to his opposition.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

The property owner in this case is the American people, who I'm pretty sure don't support this.

They may have hired a property manager, but if the manager goes rogue, what the owners say is more important.

>It is, in fact, illegal to hire undocumented immigrants. Federal offense actually.

So then where are all these illegal immigrants getting hired?

"Law on the books" and "Law enforced" are very different.

Defiance of the rules? What rules exactly? The law does make clear that H1-Bs are temporary workers. But it's also permitted to renew, and workers are allowed to pursue immigrant status. In fact, until 1990 there was specific language saying that H1-B's (like all visitor visas) are not supposed to want to stay, they must maintain a foreign residence "which he has no intention of abandoning". This language was struck and the visas became, and still are, the most common defacto "seeking green card" status for workers seeking to move the US.

To be clear, while a person who enters the US on an H1-B is a temporary worker, they are not prohibited from also seeking a permanent status. So it's fully within the rules, which is why it becomes a question of norms. In the present, the H1-B is (was?) the most popular route to permanent immigration to the US besides family sponsorship.

I specifically said that the government (and the citizenry by extension) can decide who it wants to enter and stay, how much immigration, whatever. But changing the rules suddenly, upending peoples lives who have not broken any rules, through a pathway the US state itself freely established, is immoral and short sighted.

It should go without saying that there are experts across many fields in industry that any country would benefit from attracting. The US is harming its capacity to attract and keep that talent with these ridiculous theatrics.

No, people are following the rules and politely asking for a renewal in a different country.

The issue here is that they're not being denied, the government is basically refusing to make a decision for an indefinite amount of time.

I'm assuming most normal cases will get their visas eventually, the question is when. In the meantime the applicant can pay rent in the US, find some place to live abroad and maybe continue working from overseas? All so the state department can retrain a few people?

> The moral issue is the same in both cases: there’s a big sign that says “temporary.” People have chosen to ignore the sign.

No. Your analogy works well solely for the concept of temporary authorization.

If you're offering up 2h parking as proof that the moral stakes are equivalent...

Do you think the moral issue is the same if someone fails to hold a door for you, or if they shoot you? It’s rude either way, right?

I don’t have words for it, but the US has been infected with some kind of hybrid reductionism / nihilism where people think that vicious bad behavior can be enjoyed and justified, even righteously glorified, if a disingenuous analogy can somehow be crafted to something banal and comparatively harmless.

Nobody actually believes it, but it’s become a game of sorts. I don’t like it.

The very first sentence of the article begins "The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas..."

Are we reading different articles? The headline says immigrant visas. The first paragraph says immigrant visas.

“The Trump administration has paused processing of immigrant visas, which allow recipients to move permanently to the U.S., to train visa officers on new guidance ensuring that applicants have enough financial means to support themselves after they arrive.”

Suspicious given the xenophobic nationalist government the US has in place. "But we're just following the rules!" innocent look